[Petrodollar]

This Friday is the general release date of a new movie called "Why We Fight." It is a documentary by Eugene Jarecki about the US, war, and what Eisenhower famously stated in his farwell speech re the "military-industrial complex." Here's how the movie is described:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ''')Why We Fight' is an unflinching look at the military industrial complex and the rise of the American Empire. Inspired by Dwight Eisenhower's legendary farewell speech (in which he coined the phrase "military industrial complex"), the film surveys the scorched landscape of a half-century's military adventures, asking how -- and telling why -- a nation of, by, and for the people has become the savings-and-loan of a system whose survival depends on a state of constant war. The film moves beyond the headlines of various American military operations to the deeper questions of why -- why does America fight? What are the forces -- political, economic and ideological -- that drive us to fight against an ever-changing enemy?

[Petrodollar]

Here are a few warnings from some wise men...

Campaign Finance Structure and Corporate Personhood:Elements of Proto-Fascism

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder.

— George Washington, US President 1789–1797


I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance of the laws of our country.

— Thomas Jefferson, US President 1801–1809


Every special interest is entitled to justice full, fair and complete ... but not one is entitled to a vote in Congress, to a voice on the bench or to representation in any public office.

— Theodore Roosevelt, US President 1901–1909


The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a Group or by any controlling private owner.

— Franklin D. Roosevelt, US President 1933–1945


In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.

— Dwight Eisenhower, US President 1953–1961

[Petrodollar]

My grandparents, as proclaimed in Tom Brokaws's book were part of the “Greatest Generation." These Ameicans became of age when the US was not a superpower. That generation endured hardships under the Great Depression and made tremendous sacrifices during WWII; both experiences toughened it. The current generation must also adapt to new realities, just as the Greatest Generation did, and turn to rational fiscal policies and energy policies. The reduction of fossil-fuel consumption while making the transition to more sustainable energy alternatives will be decades long and very difficult.

As Robert Freeman has profoundly noted below, the destiny of the US will be decided by how willing the American people adjust to the realities of hydrocarbon depletion

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n the end, the choice of these two alternatives — Grab the Oil or Energy Reconfiguration —is much bigger than oil alone. It is a choice about the fundamental ethos and, in fact, the very nature of the country. Most immediately, it is about democracy versus empire. In economic terms, it is about prosperity or poverty. In engineering terms, it is a matter of efficiency over waste. In moral terms this is the choice of sufficiency or gluttony. From the standpoint of the environment, it is a preference for stewardship over continued predation. In the ways the US deals with other countries it is the choice of co-operation versus dominance. And in spiritual terms, it is the choice of hope, freedom and purpose over fear, dependency and despair. In this sense, this is truly the decision that will define the future of America and perhaps the world.

— Robert Freeman, “Will the End of Oil Mean the End of America,” 2004

[kevincarter]

[SinisterBlueCat]

D. Eisenhower said, "Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can complel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

in my humble opinion, this is the biggest key...the lack of alert and knowledgeable citizens. People here just do not care. As long as their is gas for the car, food in the fridge, junk to be bought and a president that encourages them to be patriotic by going out and buying something...that is good enough for them.

Everything else is just to hard to deal with.

[thor]

Perhaps the US is fighting to prevent a "Global Extremist Islamic Empire"?

Rumsfeld: we must prevent the rise of a "global extremist Islamic empire."

DAVID RISING

MUNICH, Germany (AP) - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld urged America's allies to increase their military spending to prevent the rise of a "global extremist Islamic empire."

He also urged the world to work for a "diplomatic solution" to halt Iran's nuclear program.

"The Iranian regime is today the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism," he said in prepared remarks. "The world does not want, and must work together to prevent, a nuclear Iran."

Rumsfeld was in Munich to address a defense conference focused on the relationship between America and its European allies.

The remarks came as the U.N. nuclear agency was meeting in Vienna, Austria to vote on a U.S.-backed proposal to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council over concerns Tehran may be developing nuclear weapons.

Rumsfeld said terrorists hope to use Iraq as the "central front" in their war, turning it into a training and recruitment area like they had done in Afghanistan under the Taliban. He warned "a war has been declared on all of our nations" and said their "futures depend on determination and unity in the face of the terrorist threat."

"We could choose to pretend, as some suggest, that the enemy is not at our doorstep. We could choose to believe, as some contend, that the threat is exaggerated.

"But those who would follow such a course must ask: what if they are wrong? What if at this moment, the enemy is counting on being underestimated, counting on being dismissed, and counting on our preoccupation," Rumsfeld said.

Rumsfeld was to follow German Chancellor Angela Merkel in the opening speeches on the second day of 42nd annual Munich security conference. In the past defense experts and policy-makers have used the prestigious gathering in southern Germany for frank exchanges.

Rumsfeld said violent extremism is a danger faced as much in Europe as in the United States.

"The struggle ahead promises to be a long war that will cause us all to recalibrate our strategies, perhaps further adjust our institutions, and certainly work closely together," he said.

He said Islamic militants are on the move and have to be checked.

"They seek to take over governments from North Africa to Southeast Asia and to re-establish a caliphate they hope, one day, will include every continent," he said. "They have designed and distributed a map where national borders are erased and replaced by a global extremist Islamic empire."

Likening the war on terror to the Cold War, Rumsfeld said the battle could be won if nations persevered. He invoked Merkel's own experience - growing up in Communist East Germany to become chancellor of a unified Germany.

"Freedom prevailed because our free nations showed resolve when retreat would have been easier, and showed courage when concession seemed simpler," he said.

But he pointed out that the United States spends 3.7 percent of its Gross Domestic Product on national defense while 19 of the 25 other NATO nations spend less than 2 percent of their GDP on defense.

He did not name countries, but Germany, which spends 1.4 percent of its GDP on defense, and others have been under pressure to step up their funding.

"It may be easier for all of us to use our scarce tax dollars to meet urgent needs we all have at home," Rumsfeld said. "But unless we invest in our defense and security, our homelands will be at risk."


http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/a ... oryid=5623

--------


If I have to choose between a Western Empire or an Islamic Empire, I'll take that Western Empire any day....

[lateStarter]

PetroDollar,

Based on everything else you said, this seems beyond the realm of fantasy:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') much less energy-intensive society will depend on America’s willingness to become a fully mobilized society that makes sacrifices similar to those during WWII. With increasingly limited choices, the US must seek policies that could mitigate this transition into a graduated approach where possible, and a rapid approach where needed

[Petrodollar]

Rumsfled...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')e said Islamic militants are on the move and have to be checked.

"They seek to take over governments from North Africa to Southeast Asia and to re-establish a caliphate they hope, one day, will include every continent," he said. "They have designed and distributed a map where national borders are erased and replaced by a global extremist Islamic empire."

[Petrodollar]

latestarter asked:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'J')ust curious, given what you believe, what are you doing to prepare for the inevitable future we all face?

[Daryl]

Just trying to get a better line on your worldview, Rich. You seem to have a soft spot for Pre-WW2 America. Is that when we went wrong, IYHO?

You know, there is a stock anti-American government rant on WW2 also. ie Germany never attacked the US, neither did Japan - Hawaii wasn't a state in 1941, just a hugely strategic archipalego we "annexed". Japan was just defending their Pacific interests by attacking our fleet at Pearl Harbor.

In return, the US violated the civil rights of its own citizens by interring Japanese immigrants and stealing their property, indiscriminately firebombed almost every large Japanese and German city, murdering millions of civilians, dropped two atomic bombs, completely annihillating two major Japanese cities, invaded both countries, occupied their capitals, disbanded their governments, tried and hung their leaders, then installed puppet governments who remain their marionnettes to this day. The propaganda employed to fool American motherhood into sacrificing millions of their sons for this cause would make the modern Iraq propaganda look tame.

I believe if you look hard enough you can also find those who reduce all motivations for these actions to a conspiratorial lust for oil, as you do with today's modern global economic system.

Your thoughts?

NB You probably want to leave Teddy Roosevelt out of your future quote barrages. He was perhaps the primordial conservative imperialist. Although I have to give him some credit. After years of agitating for an invasion of Cuba, when the time came to actually invade, he resigned his position as Undersecretary of the Navy. He then raised and commanded his own battalion, actually participating in some risky combat. We didn't exactly see Richard Perle do that, did we? Ah the good old days, when men were men.

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', 'i')e Germany never attacked the US, neither did Japan - Hawaii wasn't a state in 1941, just a hugely strategic archipalego we "annexed". Japan was just defending their Pacific interests by attacking our fleet at Pearl Harbor.

[Daryl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', ' ')Interestingly note that the Carter Doctrine does not include Venezuala.

[galacticsurfer]

I saw "why we fight" on Arte here in Germany last week in German. Arte is a french/German TV station. I thought it was pretty good. Obviously the recent election of the current republican leader of the house who is one of the most corrupt politicians shows things are not getting better in USA in this respect. The problem is the whole system is corrupt. Corporations rule the economy globally and pay the politicians. Big business replaced our previous feudal system successively during the last couple of hundred years as industrialism slowly changed everything completely in our carbon age. We are completely dependent on big business for our daily survival. This is the whole root of the problem. They get bigger all the time with takeovers and fusions. Remember the movie with Bruce Willis in "fifth element" where a rich guy had a corporation that ruled almost the whole world along with a couple other such companies and fired a million peopl one day for a trivial reason and Bruce Willis was one of those who lost his job?. We are now just feudal pawns of these people and even governments are smaller than they are. I guess the antiglobalization movement and people like Chavez and now Ahmdineschad are trying to resist the takeover just like Putin renationalized and arrested Khodorkovsky that oil billionaire beforee he could run for president or sell out all of Russia's energy wealth to Exxon.

My Dad faught in WWII with Canadian forces as a machine gunner and medic in France, Holland, Germany. He and his five brothers all survived it. My wife's grandfather lost a leg due to freezing fighting on the Finland front against Russia. Her other Grandfather, of German descent in Russia was forced into service by the Nazis in an SS uniform. After the war he was understandably put in jail in Russia and never came back. War just breeds more war and people like Bush's family(grandpa with factories full of slave labourers inPoland I believe having read) or Cheney(Halliburton) always profit form it on both sides by doing business. Big business likes war to make profit. We are manipulated and in the end die. I suppose feudalism was not much better. The little guy never wins in the end.

[Petrodollar]

Here's my view of oil-war nexus over the past 100 years...(excerpts from chapter 2 of Petrdollar Warfare)

Oil and War in the 20th Century:
The Emerging Role of the US Military in the 21st Century

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Oil – ‘the blood of the earth’ – was ‘the blood of victory… Germany had boosted too much of its superiority in iron and coal, but it had not taken sufficient account of our superiority of oil.’

— Senator Berenger, the director of France’s Comite General de Petrole, during a speech about France’s recent victory over Germany, 1918


The need for oil certainly was a prime motive [in Hitler’s decision to invade Russia].

— Albert Speer’s testimony at Nuremburg War Trials, German minister for armaments and war production, 1941–1945


The thrust is clear: Once it has seized the oil wells of west Asia, the US will determine not only which firms would bag the deals, not only the currency in which oil trade would be denominated, not only the price of oil on the international market, but even the destination of the oil.

— “Behind the Invasion of Iraq,” Aspects of India’s Economy, 2002


Iraq is hardly the only country where American troops are risking their lives on a daily basis to protect the flow of petroleum. In Colombia, Saudi Arabia, and the Republic of Georgia, US personnel are also spending their days and nights protecting pipelines and refineries, or supervising the local forces assigned to this mission. American sailors are now on oil-protection patrol in the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea, the South China Sea, and along other sea routes that deliver oil to the United States and its allies. In fact, the American military is increasingly being converted into a global oil-protection service.

– Michael Klare, “Transforming the American Military into a Global Oil-Protection Service,” October 7, 2004

[Daryl]

Again, Rich, as Mr. Bill says, another excruciatingly long post that didn't address my question.

You are a good writer and you certainly brought up some interesting issues. I'm not much of a military historian, but I believe supply chain is pretty much crucial to any military endeavor. As oil is a critical part of the modern supply chain, naturally need for oil informs any modern military strategy. It would certainly explain why two oil poor countries, Germany and Japan, also became two of the most expansionist countries of the 20th Century. Of course, it doesn't explain why the Soviet Union was also expansionist. They had no need of foreign oil, or why the US was so expansionist. They had no need of foreign oil either up until the 1970's. It also doesn't explain why Germany invaded France. Why? Because everything that happens in the world is not because of oil, that's why.

[Petrodollar]

My post is designed to illustrate the oil-war nexus over the past 100 years. For those interested in exploring this history in more depth, I recommend Daniel Yergin's 1992 Pulitzer prize-winning book, The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067179 ... oding=UTF8

After reading Yergin's 900-page magnum opus, one can begin to appreciate the meaning behind this generalized statement:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f you know the history of oil during the 20th century,
then you know about 90% of the history.

[Daryl]

Woops, confused your first name with Richard Clarke's for some reason. See your article was published on globalresearcher.com. I think it fits right in there next to the guy who thinks the neo-cons knocked down the WTC towers.

[Daryl]

Willliam, still curious if you think the 1991 Iraq War was an act of imperialism by the US or not. The official pretext for that war was to "defend the national sovereignity of Kuwait". Do you think the first Bush was being honest about that, or do you think his real goal was to protect the US oil supply ie "steal oil priced in tributory US petrodollars", to put it in your terms. Also, do you consider the Carter doctrine imperialistic?

The reason I ask is that you often seem to argue that the second Bush's neocon policy represents a radical change in US foreign policy. By quoting former American presidents to support your arguments, you imply that Bush has betrayed past American policy. I disagree. I see alot of consistency in American foreign policy. In the 19th Century, while the Europeans were building their colonial empires, the US was focussed on expanding its territory on the North American continent to the Pacific Ocean. This was done in part by starting several wars, some with other European powers, but mostly with Mexico and the indigineous American peoples. Once the US had conquered the parts of the North American continent that it wanted, Teddy Roosevelt started the period of US global expansion. He was responsible for not only some small colonial acquisitions(Cuba, Phillipines, Panama Canal), but more importantly the massive buildup of the US Navy. This was followed by our involvement in WW1, was briefly sidetracked by the Depression, then began its modern period of aggressive US global expansionism with WW2. WW2 has been whitewashed by our domestic propaganda as a purely defensive war, but in reality it can only be described as defensive because the US effectively declared the entire Pacific Ocean and all of Western Europe its sphere of influence. Uh....on what basis?

I see American foreign policy as having basically three phases. The first two, Manifest Destiny and the Monroe Doctrine, sort of coincided with each other up until the onset of the 20th Century. Manifest Destiny was the more aggressive "continental" policy, while the Monroe Doctrine was its more passive "international" counterpart. WW1 was a trial run of the next phase, which started with WW2. Manifest Destiny was fulfilled of course, and the Monroe Doctrine was effectively modified from declaring the Americas as the US sphere of influence to declaring the entire world the US sphere of influence. This is the phase we are still in. I don't think it has a name yet, but it basically says that the US reserves the right to intervene militarily anywhere in the world to protect its interests.

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', 'T')he reason I ask is that you often seem to argue that the second Bush's neocon policy represents a radical change in US foreign policy.

[Daryl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', 'T')he reason I ask is that you often seem to argue that the second Bush's neocon policy represents a radical change in US foreign policy.